B-Man Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Do you guys ever get tired of comparing Obama to Nazis? I thought that when Bush left office would could put the whole Nazi thing to bed. However I think for the rest of history one party will always accuse the other party of being a bunch of Nazis and fascists. I know people that grew up in real fascist nations under true fascist leaders and to claim that Obama or Bush a Nazi or a fascist is a total insult to them. I agree with your overall concern Big, I subscribe to Godwin's Law.........whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost ... However, if you re-read the OP, he wasn't calling Mr. Obama a Nazi....he was calling him a Socialist. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Do you guys ever get tired of comparing Obama to Nazis? I thought that when Bush left office would could put the whole Nazi thing to bed. However I think for the rest of history one party will always accuse the other party of being a bunch of Nazis and fascists. I know people that grew up in real fascist nations under true fascist leaders and to claim that Obama or Bush a Nazi or a fascist is a total insult to them. Well the guy won't play golf with Netanyahu. What conclusions are we supposed to arrive at other than national socialism? Or are you calling Hank "Bear" Williams Jr. a liar and a homosexual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I agree with your overall concern Big, I subscribe to Godwin's Law.........whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost ... However, if you re-read the OP, he wasn't calling Mr. Obama a Nazi....he was calling him a Socialist. . Nazis are socialists. Of course, they're also nationalists. So a real Nazi president would be some sort of Bush/Obama hybrid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) Nazis are socialists. Of course, they're also nationalists. So a real Nazi president would be some sort of Bush/Obama hybrid. That would be interesting.................a President who blames himself all the time..............lol . Edited March 6, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 That would be interesting.................a President who blames himself all the time..............lol . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 That would be interesting.................a President who blames himself all the time..............lol . "I inherited a terrible economy from myself." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 "I inherited a terrible economy from myself." It'd be fun watching Pelosi's empty little head explode trying to blame "the failed policies of the previous administration." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 It'd be fun watching Pelosi's empty little head explode trying to blame "the failed policies of the previous administration." "Hope and Change".............er, uh.........stay the course? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I will say this, Romney's focus on the economy has been spectacularly myopic. Maybe, and I know your hope that is that he stays on message and somehow survives the cesspool that is the Republican primary because his economic message plays better to independents than it does to the base. That's a good strategy for the long haul...but he's engaged in enough of the social issues to tarnish him, and having to associate and engage on those issues because Santorum won't go away is hurting him both in the short and long term. He can't focus on Obama until Santorum and Gingrich are vanquished, which is going to take a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) He can't focus on Obama until Santorum and Gingrich are vanquished, which is going to take a long time. I agree, and I'm beginning to wonder if he'll get all the white evangelical voters that normally go to conservatives. He'll get the vast majority of them, but he'll need every last one of them, and I hate to say it, but there is definitely religious bigotry that is out there, not just from the left but on the right as well. Having said that, I've been looking at polling data, specially the internals, looking at sampling data etc. and the polls that have the correct data show a neck and neck race between Obama and Romney. I'll give you an example, last week there was a NBC poll that showed that Obama has a 50% to 38% advantage in the state of Ohio. Sounds like a landslide right? Well, if you decided to delve into the internals as I like to do, it showed that out of the polling 50% out of those polled either identified themselves as Democrats or independents who leaned for Democrats, and 37% for Repubs or Independents who lean Repub. Ohio doesn't provide Voter registration details, so its up to the poll to determine what they believe is the correct sampling, now considering that Conservatives in Ohio won the only Senator seat race in 2010, won a net plus of 5 house seats, won the governors seat, the Lt Gov seat and won control of the state legislature, and two straight elections in 2000, 2004 for G.W Bush, you'd have to be either willfully dishonest in setting the demographical sampling for this poll, or just completely oblivious to reality. If the sampling were to have been even, you'd see it's a dead heat race. And if you look at polling data from the best three, Quinnipiac, Gallup and Rasmussen, the race is deadlocked. What I'm getting at is we have to remember who is reporting all the data that we read every day, any objective person understans that most of the media has a bias for Obama, for crying out loud, have you been reading Politico lately? What use to be semi barely to the left back in 2008,2009 and most of 2010 has gone unabashedly to the left and may as well be part of Obamas election campaign. There is a narrative that the media and left want to portray and that is that the president is beginning to open up a sizable lead and that Romney has gone to far to the right to win the middle and that there is no energy on the right. You would actually believe that if you only subscribed to normal media outlets, such as WAPO, Politico, NBC etc. But that doesn't paint an accurate picture, MIchigan turnout was way above normal and so was Ohio, yet that wasn't reported. Gallup just had a poll that came out and showed that Conservatives have a 9% advantage in Enthusiasm over Dems, and wait until they get focused when it becomes a 1 on 1 matchup. Also they showed that Mitt has a 10% advantage with non affiliated registered voters. I've always believed that Romney will be a better election candidate than a primary one, simply because his core is closer to the middle than that of an average right winger, and I personally find that appealing. I believe his economic message will be a big net plus, and if independent voters decide that the economy and the debt are the most important issues, and Romney continues to highlight Obamas abysmal record in these areas along with Romney's success, then he stands a good shot at winning. Four things though I see that could be potential roadblocks. The latino vote, if it stands as is, 70-14% Romney loses, no way to overcome that. Two mormon bigotry, if it is there in larger numbers than I had believed there would be, then that will depress Conservative and independent votes, which could cost him the election. Three, this election doesn't become a referendum on Obama's failures and focuses on how Romney is out of touch with the American voter, he's anti woman and only wants to protect his 1% buddies, then Romney loses. And lastly, as you pointed too, that this continues to be such a bloody primary for another couple months, and Romney continues to move akwardly to the right, alienating moderates and racking up negatives with independents, that it will be difficult to shed those unfavorables by election time. That's why the VP selection is critical, someone who can allay the fears of the first two causes of concerns that I listed. Well, thats my summary Edited March 7, 2012 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 ...for crying out loud, have you been reading Politico lately? Politico used to be a daily stop for me. Now the only time I go there is when someone posts a link and I don't check the address. It has gone all in for Obama, and as a result is useless as a place to get even the slightest bit of news that seems objective. I think once they went after Herman Cain, they had no choice but to come out of the closet and try to bring in the Huffpost/.DailyKos/MediaMatters crowds because they lost way too many people like myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 That's a salient analysis. I feel you overstate optimism about polls that show Romney neck-n-neck with Obama. Obama isn't campaigning yet--I know--"He's been campaigning for 3 years" but we all know that's not true. When the Obama campaign team kicks into high gear, it's going to rev up strong. You don't, but people who doubt the strength of campaign Obama need to remember 2008 when a no name Senator became president. He's a strong campaigner. And he can spin a lot of positives "We've turned the ship around that the Republicans handed us." "Who's more of a friend of the 1%? Me, or the billionaire?" "We got out of the stupid war in Iraq." "We killed Osama." Of course, a lot of it is BS but their message will be strong and one of Obama's weakest points with independents, the health care law passage, Romney can't credibly attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 That's a salient analysis. I feel you overstate optimism about polls that show Romney neck-n-neck with Obama. Obama isn't campaigning yet--I know--"He's been campaigning for 3 years" but we all know that's not true. When the Obama campaign team kicks into high gear, it's going to rev up strong. You don't, but people who doubt the strength of campaign Obama need to remember 2008 when a no name Senator became president. He's a strong campaigner. And he can spin a lot of positives "We've turned the ship around that the Republicans handed us." "Who's more of a friend of the 1%? Me, or the billionaire?" "We got out of the stupid war in Iraq." "We killed Osama." Of course, a lot of it is BS but their message will be strong and one of Obama's weakest points with independents, the health care law passage, Romney can't credibly attack. There is no doubt that Obama is one hell of a campaigner, and significantly more gifted politically than Romney could ever be, so that will help him deflect away from his record and attempt to frame the campaign through the lens that they choose. In regards to the health care law, without a doubt, Romney isn't the best suited to attack Obama on this issue, but this is where his VP selection could help, plus it will be made abundantly clear that Romney does support repealing the health care law. Poll after poll supports this position, but Gallup had a poll recently that should give Conservatives something to think about. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx They polled what do you believe is important? 1) Economy 92% 2) Unemployment 82% 3) Federal Budget Deficit 79% 4) 2010 Health Care law 75% 5) Terrorism 72% 6) Taxes 71% you know what was way down on the list? The Obama "fairness" issue. Gap between rich and poor at 56% Now, I would be willing to bet you that for any news junkies, that follow the mainstream outlets, you wouldn't of believed that. You would of thought that the "fairness" issue is slightly behind the Federal budget Deficit. This tells you that alot of independents don't see this as an important issue. You could easily argue, substantively that what Americans find to be important to them gives Romney an advantage. I've always said that framing the issues will matter greatly, but Romney begins with the advantage, the advantage that in what Americans care about, Romney is on the better side of the argument. So it's a matter of execution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 1) Economy 92% 2) Unemployment 82% 3) Federal Budget Deficit 79% 4) 2010 Health Care law 75% 5) Terrorism 72% 6) Taxes 71% you know what was way down on the list? The Obama "fairness" issue. Gap between rich and poor at 56% Now, I would be willing to bet you that for any news junkies, that follow the mainstream outlets, you wouldn't of believed that. You would of thought that the "fairness" issue is slightly behind the Federal budget Deficit. This tells you that alot of independents don't see this as an important issue. You could easily argue, substantively that what Americans find to be important to them gives Romney an advantage. I've always said that framing the issues will matter greatly, but Romney begins with the advantage, the advantage that in what Americans care about, Romney is on the better side of the argument. So it's a matter of execution. The fact that "fairness" weighs in at 56% is incredible. Imagine how many people who see fairness through the lens of the "Economy" and "unemployment" answers. Obama's 99% message will resonate. Romney's message of "If you're in the 99%, I want to give you the best chance of becoming one of the 1%" is one I prefer but I'm not naive enough to see that as a winning theme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 The fact that "fairness" weighs in at 56% is incredible. Imagine how many people who see fairness through the lens of the "Economy" and "unemployment" answers. Obama's 99% message will resonate. Romney's message of "If you're in the 99%, I want to give you the best chance of becoming one of the 1%" is one I prefer but I'm not naive enough to see that as a winning theme. What????? Sorry math doesn't agree with you. Now you're just being unreasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Sorry math doesn't agree with you. Now you're just being unreasonable. You're arguing your position with reason, and you're doing it against a position that was not made with reason. JA doesn't believe Obama will win in a landslide because the numbers are on his side. He sounds the alarm just in case it happens, so he won't feel as badly if it does. It's like the guy who doesn't understand why the girl likes him, and in his quest to understand why, finds it easier to convince himself she's going to leave him anyway, so why not break up with her now. He's preparing himself for worst-case scenario and in doing so is relying on reasonable people like yourself to make the case that he is unable to make because he is too afraid of how hurt he'll be if Obama really wins again. In fact, he is so concerned about Obama winning that he has actually convinced himself that it would be BETTER if Obama had four more years of unchecked power than if, say, the winner is a guy who wears a sweater vest. The numbers and case you make are underlying truths. Another underlying truth, as far as I'm concerned, is you can not fake success. Every time the unemployment number drops, there is a steady stream of information that supports the fact that the employment situation is not actually getting better, but that other less-optimistic items are forcing it downward. So while Obama can stand around talking about progress, the people who really are NOT counted in that number know the real truth of their circmstances, and they will be one of the big difference-makers in November. JA, on the other hand, sees a moronic electorate who will believe the numbers even if they've been unemployed for three years. Personally, I don't think we're that stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 What????? Sorry math doesn't agree with you. Now you're just being unreasonable. What math doesn't agree? I looked at the poll question and results. The fact that 56% of people specifically mentioned fairness and income equality is a !@#$ horror and undoubtedly leftist. The economy answers--"jobs" and "economy in general"--are not necessarily good for the Conservative movement. Some of the people identifying" economy in genera" are no doubt socialists. Just because a lot of economic issues is a high concern doesn't mean that it's good news for Romney, especially with so many people on the "99%" fairness bandwagon. You're arguing your position with reason, and you're doing it against a position that was not made with reason. Personally, I don't think we're that stupid. President Barack Obama. Vice President Biden. Go home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 You're arguing your position with reason, and you're doing it against a position that was not made with reason. JA doesn't believe Obama will win in a landslide because the numbers are on his side. He sounds the alarm just in case it happens, so he won't feel as badly if it does. It's like the guy who doesn't understand why the girl likes him, and in his quest to understand why, finds it easier to convince himself she's going to leave him anyway, so why not break up with her now. He's preparing himself for worst-case scenario and in doing so is relying on reasonable people like yourself to make the case that he is unable to make because he is too afraid of how hurt he'll be if Obama really wins again. In fact, he is so concerned about Obama winning that he has actually convinced himself that it would be BETTER if Obama had four more years of unchecked power than if, say, the winner is a guy who wears a sweater vest. The numbers and case you make are underlying truths. Another underlying truth, as far as I'm concerned, is you can not fake success. Every time the unemployment number drops, there is a steady stream of information that supports the fact that the employment situation is not actually getting better, but that other less-optimistic items are forcing it downward. So while Obama can stand around talking about progress, the people who really are NOT counted in that number know the real truth of their circmstances, and they will be one of the big difference-makers in November. JA, on the other hand, sees a moronic electorate who will believe the numbers even if they've been unemployed for three years. Personally, I don't think we're that stupid. I just heard somewhere that there are 5.5 million less people working now than in 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 President Barack Obama. Vice President Biden. Go home. Being right doesn't make you any less of a quitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Being right doesn't make you any less of a quitter. So wait, I don't argue with reason but I'm right? Quit while you're ahead Beavis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts